A History of Inventions, Discoveries, and Origins, Volume II (of 2)

Though an order was made by the Convention of Ratisbon1141 in 742, that every commander of an army should have along with him two bishops, with priests and chaplains, and that every colonel should be attended by a confessor, no mention is to be found either of field-hospitals or army-surgeons belonging to the first Christian armies in the writings of the middle ages. We read, however, in the works of Paracelsus, Thurneyser, Lottich and others, that they were present at battles and sieges; but it can be proved that they were not appointed as army-surgeons, but served merely as soldiers.

The field-surgeons, who occur as accompanying armies in the beginning of the fifteenth century, were destined rather for the use of the commanders and principal officers, than for the service of the field-hospital. Their number was too small for a whole army; and as they were authorised by their commission to receive prisoners and booty, and, like the knights, were obliged to bring with them archers, it is highly probable that to fight was a part of their duty also.

When Henry V. of England carried on war with France in 1415, he took into his service Nicholas Colnet, as field-surgeon, for a year1142. He was bound to carry with him three archers on horseback, and to accompany the king wherever he went. In return he was to receive yearly forty marks or pounds, to be paid at the rate of ten marks every quarter. He was allowed also twelve pennies per day as subsistence money, and each of his archers had twenty marks a year, and six pennies daily for subsistence. The chief army-surgeon, Morstede, was engaged with fifteen men, three of whom were to be archers, and the remaining twelve surgeons. He received also ten pounds quarterly as pay, and twelve pennies daily for subsistence. His archers and surgeons were placed on an equal footing; each was to receive quarterly five pounds, and six pennies daily as subsistence. Both Colnet and Morstede could receive prisoners and plunder; but when the latter amounted to more than twenty pounds in value, a third part of it was to be given to the king. Both these head-men had a quarter’s pay in advance; and, that they might always have security for the next quarter, the king engaged to put into their hands, by way of pledge, as many jewels or other articles as might be equivalent to one quarter’s pay and subsistence.

Harte, in his Life of Gustavus Adolphus, seems to believe that this prince first appointed four surgeons to each regiment, which he reduced from the number of two or three thousand, first to 1200, and afterwards to 1008; and he is of opinion that it may with certainty be believed that the imperial troops at that time had no surgeons, because Tilly himself, after the battle at Leipsic, was obliged to cause his wounds to be dressed by a surgeon established at Halle. He adds in a note, that he was told that the Austrians, till about the year 1718, had no regimental surgeons regularly appointed. However this may be, it is certain that the field-hospital establishments of the imperial army, till the beginning of the eighteenth century, were on a very bad footing. Even in the year 1718, they had no field-surgeons; but at this period the company surgeons were dismissed, and a regimental surgeon, with six assistants, was appointed to each regiment; and beside the field medicine-chest, surgical instruments were provided at the emperor’s expense1143.

The establishment of field-hospitals in Germany is certainly much older; for Fronsperger, who wrote in the middle of the sixteenth century, does not speak of field-surgeons, army-surgeons and their servants, as if they had been then newly introduced; but in such a manner as shows that the need of them had been generally acknowledged long before that period1144. According to his statement, it was necessary that there should be along with the commander-in-chief, or, according to the modern phrase, the general staff, a field-surgeon-in-chief, a doctor who had the inspection of the field-surgeons, the barbers and their servants, whose duty was to drag the wounded from the heaps of slain and to convey them to the former. He was obliged to keep by him instruments and medicines, and at each mustering to examine the instruments and apparatus of the field-surgeons; he decided also, in disputed cases, how much soldiers whose wounds had been cured ought to pay to the field-surgeon. During marches he was bound to remain with the commander-in-chief. Fronsperger says also, that there ought to be with the artillery a field-surgeon of arckelley, and with each company a particular field-surgeon, not however a paltry beard-scraper (bart-scherer), but a regularly instructed, experienced and well-practised man. This person was bound always to accompany, with able servants, the ensign, and he received double pay.

[To give a description of all the hospitals, infirmaries and dispensaries in this country would fill volumes. It may be sufficient here to observe, that there are ten large hospitals in the metropolis, each of which receives a considerable number of patients into the house, and a still larger number of out-door patients are prescribed for and supplied with medicines, but attend at the establishments. In the largest of these, which is that of St. Bartholomew, the annual number of patients, both in-door and out, is about 12,000; about three-fifths of these are out-door patients. The number of beds in the hospital amounts to upwards of 550.

There are twenty-eight dispensaries; such patients as are able, attend at these establishments; those who are incapable, are visited and relieved at their own homes.

Moreover, there are in the metropolis ten midwifery establishments, three ophthalmic institutions, three public lunatic asylums, a venereal hospital, a small-pox and a fever hospital, as also one for patients suffering from consumption.

There are also ninety-seven county hospitals, infirmaries and dispensaries1145.

Admission to the hospitals is gained by the presentation of a petition signed by a governor, on a certain day in each week; of course, out of the number of patients who apply, the worst cases have the preference. Accidents and very severe cases are admitted at any time, and without any petition or recommendation. The out-patients require no recommendation. The same general rule gains attendance at the other medical establishments.]

COCK-FIGHTING

Until a recent period the English were almost the only people among whom cock-fighting was a favourite amusement; and on that account it is considered as peculiar to them, though it was esteemed among various nations many centuries ago. It is not improbable that it was first introduced into England by the Romans. That it, however, has been constantly retained there, though the practice of inciting animals to fight has been long scouted by moral and enlightened nations, is as singular an anomaly, as that the Spaniards should still continue their bull-fights, and that princes who wish to avoid the appearance of cruelty should nevertheless pursue, with immoderate passion, the detestable and so often condemned hunting with dogs. I shall leave to others the task of moralising on these contradictions in the character of whole nations as well as individuals, and shall here only give the history of cock-fighting as far as I am acquainted with it.

This pastime is certainly very old; but I agree in opinion with Mr. Pegge1146, that Palmerius1147 has made it much older than can fully be proved. The latter supposes that Adrastus, the son of Midas, king of Phrygia, killed his brother in consequence of a quarrel which took place between them in regard to a battle of quails. Adrastus on account of this murder fled to Crœsus; and as that prince lived about 550 years before the Christian æra, quail-fighting, according to the opinion of Palmerius, must have been customary at that time; and in this case one might admit that cock-fighting was of the same antiquity, because the battles of the domestic cock are still more violent, and can afford more amusement. Herodotus1148, who relates the story of Adrastus, does not mention the cause of the quarrel; but it is given by the historian Ptolemy, the son of Hephestion, called also Alexandrinus, who lived about the time of Trajan and Adrian1149. He however only says that the two brothers quarrelled about a quail. Did any other proofs exist that quail-fighting was common at so early a period, it would indeed be then probable that the brothers quarrelled during that pastime. But as no such proofs are to be found, many other causes of quarrelling in regard to a quail, either in catching or pursuing it, may be conceived.

It is however certain that quails, as well as the domestic cock, are exceedingly irritable and quarrelsome birds; and that, like the latter, they can be employed for fighting; but it appears that quail-fighting was first practised by the Romans, in whose writings it is frequently mentioned1150; whereas among the Greeks it seldom or never occurs, while cock-fighting is spoken of on many occasions. The latter however sported with quails; but their pastime with these birds seems not to have been fighting, properly so called, where the great object of contest is whose quail shall be the victor; but the information on this subject is so imperfect that it cannot be fully understood1151. Sometimes the parties laid bets who could kill the other’s quails, or the greatest number of them, with one blow. One placed a quail within a circle, and another endeavoured by irritating the animal to make it go beyond it. If he proved successful in this attempt, he was declared the winner. Several were often placed within a circle at the same time, and the person lost whose bird first quitted it. Kühn and others are of opinion, that each of the parties endeavoured to induce the quail of the other to leave the circle, by irritating or enticing it; but the words appear without doubt to allude to a contest of several quails with each other1152, were it possible that the later Greeks had learned to play at this game from the contests of the Romans.

Solon, however, in Lucian1153, speaks of cock-fights and quail-fights exhibited publicly at Athens. But Lucian lived in the second century, had travelled into Italy, was well acquainted with the Roman customs, and made Solon mention quail-fighting, which he never saw in Greece, merely because he himself had seen it in Italy. This blunder may appear too gross, perhaps, for so acute a writer as Lucian; but since he has fallen into two anachronisms in the same dialogue, as he not only makes Solon a contemporary of Lycurgus, who lived two centuries earlier, but also introduces him as speaking of public cock-fights at Athens, which were first established half a century later, that is to say, after the battle of Marathon, he may readily have been guilty of a third oversight, by transferring quail-fighting to Athens. But at any rate similar games were usual in the island of Cyprus in the sixteenth century.

It appears, however, that the Romans bred and employed partridges for fighting in the same manner as quails. Lampridius relates, that the emperor Alexander Severus was fond of seeing battles of this kind1154; and Ælian, who lived in Italy under Heliogabalus, in the second century1155, says that those who kept partridges for fighting, when they pitted them against each other, placed the females close to the males, in order to render them more courageous. Without doubt he here speaks of what was then usual at Rome.

Cock-fighting was appointed at Athens to be a public or solemn pastime, in consequence of a circumstance which occurred to Themistocles. At least Ælian relates1156 that this commander, when he led out the Greeks against the Persians, happening to see two cocks fighting, took that opportunity to rouse the courage of his soldiers, by telling them that as these animals contended with so much obstinacy, though they fought neither for their country, their families, nor their liberty, but merely for the honour of victory, it was much more incumbent on them to exert themselves with bravery, as they had all these causes of incitement. Having defeated the enemy, as a memorial of his victory and a future encouragement to bravery, it was ordered that fighting-cocks should be exhibited every year, in a public theatre, in the presence of the whole people.

Mr. Pegge and others are of opinion that the Greeks afterwards took so much pleasure in the fighting of these birds, that they were generally employed throughout all Greece for this pastime and for betting. I am ready to admit that this is probable; but the institution of Themistocles appears to me to be no proof that cock-fighting was not practised at an earlier period. Even if it had been common, the Athenians might have thought proper to establish a religious or at least solemn cock-fighting to be exhibited every year. Themistocles however is not the only person who employed the courage of game-cocks as an incitement to bravery. Socrates inspired Iphicrates with courage, by showing him with what ferocity the cock of Midas, or Meidias, and that of Callias attacked each other1157. What Themistocles said to his soldiers was addressed by Musonius as a philosopher to mankind, to encourage them to support labour, danger, and pain, when duty or honour require it1158.

Many modern writers ascribe the establishment of public cock-fighting at Athens, not to Themistocles, but to his contemporary Miltiades. I have hitherto suspected that this arises merely from a confusion of names, as is certainly the case in Moses du Soul1159, where a reference is made to Ælian, by whom however Miltiades is not mentioned. At present, I am of opinion that Philo Judæus, who wrote in the first century, gave occasion to this assertion. He relates, that when Miltiades was about to lead the Grecian troops against the Persians, he exhibited a cock-fight, in a place which had been employed for public shows, in order to inspire courage into his soldiers by this spectacle, and that the end proposed was accomplished; but nothing is said by that author in regard to the establishment of annual cock-fights1160. According to this account, cock-fighting seems to have been at that time not uncommon; but as it remains doubtful whether Philo speaks of the campaign before the battle of Marathon, in which Miltiades and Themistocles were both present, very little can be gathered from his relation, and it appears to me not sufficient to contradict the more circumstantial account of Ælian.

Another small mistake, which Pegge thought it worth while to notice, deserves also perhaps to be rectified. Dalechamp1161 and Potter1162 assert that Themistocles, while leading out his army, having heard a cock crow, declared this to be an omen of victory, and after beating the enemy he instituted cock-fighting in remembrance of that event. I shall here remark, that Dalechamp is not the first person who made this assertion. Peucer1163, and at a period still earlier, Alexander ab Alexandro1164 mentioned the same thing, but no one ever pointed out the passage in any ancient author upon which this assertion was founded; and I have been as unsuccessful in my endeavours to find it, as those who attempted to discover the sources from which Alexander derived his information. This author perhaps collected from manuscripts, in the fifteenth century, many things never printed, and which therefore have been lost. He may also have written many things from memory without remembering them all with accuracy.

It is indeed true, that the crowing of a cock was sometimes considered as a presage of victory. Thus Cicero quotes an instance1165 where a Bœotian soothsayer promised victory to the Thebans from the crowing of a cock; and according to Pliny1166, the same circumstance once served to the Bœotians as an omen of victory over the Lacedæmonians. How then could Themistocles make choice of a cock-fight to commemorate a victory announced by the crowing of a cock? Besides, Anacharsis in Lucian confirms the object of the institution assigned by Ælian. In the history of antiquity many things are often repeated, without any one taking the trouble to examine whether they can be proved by the testimony of the ancients. Those who wish to attain to truth and certainty in matters of this kind, will not consider such short examinations to be of so little importance as they may to others appear.

Dempster has assigned another reason for the cock-fights established by Themistocles, which, though adopted by many, is not even supported by probability. He conceives that these cock-fights were like a kind of permanent trophies or monuments of the conquered Persians, because the game-cock was indigenous in Persia, and conveyed thence to other countries1167.

Athenæus1168, indeed, quotes from a work of Menodotus some lines by which the latter part of this assertion is confirmed; and Aristophanes1169 in two places calls the domestic cock a Persian bird. It is proved by more modern accounts, that this species of fowl is at present found wild in the East Indies and many neighbouring countries. Sonnerat1170 found them in Hindostan; and they were seen by Cook and by Dampier on Pulo Condor and many islands of the South Sea. According to the testimony of Gemelli Careri, they were indigenous in the Philippine islands, and according to Morolla in the kingdom of Congo. That they are still found wild in Georgia is asserted by Reineggs1171. The account therefore of the Greeks, that they obtained domestic fowls from Persia, may be admitted; but as in cock-fights one Persian overcame another, how could these convey the idea of a victory of the Greeks over the Persians? Is the object, then, as stated by Lucian and Ælian not sufficient and intelligible?

That cock-fighting, in the course of time, became a favourite pastime among the people, is proved by the frequent mention which is made of it in various authors. Pliny says1172 that it was exhibited annually at Pergamus, in the same manner as combats of gladiators. In this city, according to Petronius1173, a boy was promised a fighting-cock; and therefore it appears that boys kept cocks there for this pastime. Æschines reproaches Timarchus with spending the whole day in gaming and cock-fighting. Plato1174 complains, that not only boys but grown-up persons, instead of labouring, bred birds for fighting, and employed their whole time in such idle amusements.

Cock-fights were represented also by the Greeks on coins and on cut stones. That the Dardani had them on their coins we are told by Pollux1175; and this seems to prove that these people were as fond of that sport as their neighbours of Pergamus. Mr. Pegge caused engravings to be made of two gems in the collection of Sir William Hamilton, on one of which is seen a cock in the humble attitude of defeat, with its head hanging down, and another in the attitude of victory, with an ear of corn in its bill as the object of contest. On the other stone two cocks are fighting, while a mouse carries away the ear of corn for the possession of which they had quarrelled; a happy emblem of our law-suits, in which the greater part of the property in dispute falls to the lawyers and attorneys. Two cocks in the attitude of fighting are represented also on a lamp found in Herculaneum1176.

That the Greeks employed various means to increase the irritability and courage of fighting-cocks is beyond all doubt. Besides the circumstance already mentioned in regard to the females, they gave them also food which produced nearly the same effect as opium does in India, and as brandy did some years ago on the European armies. Dioscorides1177 and Pliny1178 ascribe this effect to a plant which they call adiantum. The former says it was given to game-cocks and quails, and the latter that it was given to game-cocks and partridges, to incite them to fight. Garlick, allium, was employed also, as we are told by Xenophon, not only for game-cocks but also for horses and soldiers. That the Greeks, however, like the English at present, armed their cocks with steel spurs, in order to render their battles more bloody, is denied by Pegge; though the contrary seems to be proved by a passage in Aristophanes, now become a proverb, and the remarks of the scholiast1179. As the English procure the strongest and best fighting-cocks from other countries, and often from Germany, through Hamburg, the Greeks, in the like manner, obtained foreign game-cocks for the same purpose1180.

Why the Romans showed more fondness for quail-fighting than for cock-fighting I do not know; but it is certain that they had not the latter, or at any rate only seldom and at a late period, which appears to be very singular, as they began then more and more to imitate the Greeks. Varro mentions the breeds which were chiefly sought for in Greece; but he adds, that though they might be good for fighting, they were not fit for breeding1181. Had the breeding of game-cocks been an employment, he would have spoken in a different manner. Columella also ridicules the breeding of these cocks, as a Grecian custom, and prefers the native race to all others. Eustathius, in the place already quoted, says expressly that the Romans preferred quails to game-cocks; yet in later times we find mention among them of cock-fighting, as has been before remarked.

There were cocks in England in the time of Julius Cæsar1182; but it is said that they were kept there merely for pleasure, and not used as food. The latter part of this account is not improbable. The inhabitants of the Pelew Islands, we are told, eat only the eggs of their hens, and not the flesh. But the question, how old cock-fighting is in England, cannot be determined. Pegge says, the oldest information which he found on this subject was in the Description of the City of London by William Fitz-Stephens, who lived in the reign of Henry II., and died in 11911183. This writer relates that every year on Shrove Tuesday the boys at school brought their game-cocks to the master, and the whole forenoon was devoted to cock-fighting, for the amusement of the pupils. The theatre or cock-pit, therefore, was in the school-house, and the pupils seem to have had the direction of it. To this information I can add, that cock-fighting in France was forbidden by a council in 1260, on account of some mischief to which it had given rise1184.

This pastime has been sometimes forbidden even in England, as was the case under Edward III. and Henry VIII.; also in the year 1569, and even later; but it was nevertheless retained to a late period. Even Henry VIII. himself instituted fights of this kind; and a writer worthy of credit relates, that James I. took great delight in them1185. In modern times this cruel amusement has been carried beyond all bounds; so that the cock-fights in China1186, Persia1187, Malacca1188, and America1189, are nothing in comparison of those called the battle-royal and the Welsh main. In the former a certain number of cocks are let loose to fight, and when they have destroyed each other, the survivor is accounted the victor, and obtains the prize. In the latter kind of battle, sixteen pair of cocks, for example, being pitted against each other, the sixteen conquerors are made to fight again; the eight of these which are victors, must fight a third time; and the four remaining a fourth time, till at length the two last conquerors terminate, by a fifth contest, this murderous game, after thirty-one cocks have successively butchered each other amidst the noisy exultation of the spectators, who however make a pretence to the character of magnanimity.

[Cock-fighting is one of the chief amusements throughout the East Indies and China, and it is a fashionable pastime for ladies in Peru. The spot on which the cock-pit Royal, which was built in the reign of Charles II., existed, is now used for the meetings of the members of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The custom of cock-throwing, that is, of throwing sticks at a cock exposed at a stake and which was practised in this country at Shrovetide, is supposed to have originated during the war with France in the reign of Edward III., and to have been considered a mark of hatred and contempt for the French people, of whom that bird was the national emblem; but the conjecture rests upon no solid authority and must be regarded as mere legend.

Cock-fighting is now forbidden and punishable by law in Great Britain, and every attempt is made to prevent this and other similar barbarous sports and to convict the offenders, by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.]